Chinese proverb: The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. We seem as a country to be in denial as to the implications of these laws and policies. Whether we are viewed as a free country with authoritarian inclinations or an authoritarian nation with free aspirations (or some other hybrid definition), we are clearly not what we once were.

Professor Turley does an excellent job of pulling a skein of disparate strings together and tying them into a nice, neat, disturbing knot. What is especially disturbing to me is that these are not temporary infractions on liberty as were Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the WWI limits on free speech, or the detention of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during WWII. The "war" on terror is no different than the "war" on cancer or the "war" on drugs and as such is effectively endless. So long as the power elite can continue to beat the drum of crisis these extra-constitutional provisions will continue to stand and will be available in the future as tools for use by even less scrupulous elected officials than we have now. Such is the price we pay for mischaracterizing criminal activity for the clash of sovereign entities on the battlefield.

Can a bankrupt and/or insolvent government afford the totalitarian state?

Let’s flush the toilet, so to speak, and society can agree in an open and honest manner exactly what we want out of government, and what we’re willing, and able, to pay for. The “elites” at every level have set up for themselves a pretty sweet gig over the years, but it’s over or nearly so, and they are not going to go away gently into the night. They are going to go away however, simply because the math won’t allow it. So, things will get a lot more local in nature - small business, for example, should flourish for those who want to make a go of it, and the myriad rules, laws, regulations and ordinances of the non-sensical kind foisted on the productive by the non-producers will go away or be ignored. This is as it should be, and it’s a wonder anyone thought otherwise or we allowed the silliness to continue as long as it did.

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Reasoning like this is why people hate lawyers. Anwar al-Awlaqi deserved to die in spades! Capturing him would be both much harder and more dangerous than a drone strike.

A basic question is why was 9-11 used as an excuse to install ever encroaching surveillance and abrogations of freedom in place of securing our borders and halting the flood of entrants, illegal and legal, from countries that hate us? The same could be asked about the war on drugs which began in the 1970’s.

Yup, it’s always the other guys who did it.
Sure we could reverse these things when we have power, but what the hey, it’s better to bitch about whats wrong and point fingers.
But we did pass the Homeland Security Act and other measures which increased our level of freedom...

8
posted on 01/15/2012 2:51:54 PM PST
by Riodacat
(And when all is said and done, there'll be a hell of a lot more said than done......)

An interesting question is how did Anwar al-Awlaqi get citizenship. Why after 9-11 have both Bush and Obama used executive authority to import more and more from countries infested with radical jihadis?

Add to that the fact that the man was an “enemy combatant.” Or, the very least, an enemy support trooper.
You start providing aid and support to an enemy in wartime, in a foreign country, we can, and should kill you.
Too bad we didn’t kill Jane Fonda.

The rest of it makes good sense, though.

15
posted on 01/15/2012 3:14:22 PM PST
by Little Ray
(FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)

......The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts...

This—and some of the other diminutions of rights under traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence mentioned in this article—started with the bogus International Criminal “Tribunal” for the “Former Yugoslavia” (ICTY). The ICTY, which is NOT a court, but a political instrument, was designed by the Chicago-area muslim fifth columnist Cherif Bassiouni and several other anti-Serb “human rightsers”.

Now the anti-liberty design of this “court” has metastasized to the International Criminal “Court”, and has leaked out into the judicial and political processes of our own America.

America lost her way when she embarked on her anti-Serb rampage, culminating in the funding and backing of the ICTY, and in the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia herself in clinton’s war. Only when we reverse our course 180 degrees on Serbian issues—including defunding the ICTY—can we restore our own country and her traditional liberties!!!!

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, ... The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers  including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

Just a little nit pick, Mr. Turley. The rendition program was begun under the Clinton administration.

17
posted on 01/15/2012 3:25:17 PM PST
by TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)

can you spell suicide....The so called conservatives in this country have turned into wimps. When the Republicans lose, they act like losers, when they win, they still act like losers!!The current bunch running for president are patheticly beating up each other to the point that they, themselves, are pointing out why we shouldn't vote for any of them. Until we can, somehow, get the liberals out of power for an extended period of time, you are right, we are doomed!!

18
posted on 01/15/2012 3:32:42 PM PST
by terycarl
(lurking, but well informed)

An excellent article. Not only do the Chines have a proverb about wisdom, but so does the Bible. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. Psalm 110:10

22
posted on 01/15/2012 3:48:05 PM PST
by winkadink
(During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell)

What was it..oh yea, that 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

And where in the Constitution is polygamy forbidden?

The most important thing about this article is that it was published by the WASHINGTON POST.

I am certainly not condoning or siding with terrorists, but I gotta ask: according to who? I know he was accused of running a subversive website and posting to it. Last time I looked, that concept was proudly protected in our first amendment. People can run websites and post crap that we don’t agree with. Even heinous crap. To condemn someone to death without due process for running a website is an abomination to our rights.

If a citizen “deserves” it, have a trial (in absentia if need be) and convict him on the evidence. Otherwise whoever is currently in charge can kill anyone just on his say so.

How would you like it if Bill Clinton had started killing constitutional militia members a few years ago? All he would have had to do way say they were terrorists and a threat to the US. And he ALREADY SAID THAT!

Will Munny: It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Some years ago a young man from a totalitarian state was explaining to me how important it was for him to bind himself to an American family that was 'powerful' to add to his safety. I laughed - and said it's not 'who you know' that matters - what matters is the law. When countries go authoritarian - it starts becoming 'who' you know - who you can bribe - who you can trade favors for... What a nightmare that this would happen to our children and grandchildren... and that we've been powerless to stop it.

29
posted on 01/15/2012 5:16:56 PM PST
by GOPJ
(GAS WAS $1.85 per gallon on the day Obama was Inaugurated! - - freeper Gaffer)

Your analysis is correct. As Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker notes - it is about the math. Our deficit spending has been rising much faster than our production since the 1980s. These are diverging exponential functions and simply cannot continue. The question is not if the system will collapse, but when.

Well let's see.. Bush did it first (it's his fault) and Obama is just following; Obama saved Bush from being prosecuted as a war criminal -- I got all the way down to "Continual monitoring of citizens" until it wasn't Bush's fault. Then next in "Extraordinary renditions" it's continues that it's Bush's fault.

To be fair the guy did type in Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush.

and this

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

34
posted on 01/15/2012 6:35:45 PM PST
by WilliamofCarmichael
(If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)

If you are in a position of military authority, I better hope that its pretty obvious to the most casual observer that youre wrong.

It would be incredibly easy to dash those hopes. As easy as it is to steal identity info use it to subscribe to an ISP then build a website supporting and linking to any of a couple of dozen Al-Qaeda connected terrorist groups. There won't be any observers military or otherwise. Just the three man panel that makes its judgement and passes its recommendation to the TOTUS. er, POTUS.

38
posted on 01/15/2012 9:38:20 PM PST
by TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.